let the civil war begin...
btw, with idiots like rosenberg and frost running the show,dismissing the threat al-queda and facism is to america and its future, republicans will win every election from here to eternity...

Democratic critics of their party's devastating 2004 election losses say that its liberal grass-roots base needs to be fundamentally transformed, if not pulled out by the roots, before the party can win again.
In the continuing soul-searching debate over their party's future, and what needs to be done to halt its decline, no postelection analysis has sparked more uncomfortable political buzz among Democrats than a New Republic magazine critique that calls for blunting the influence wielded by the party's leftist, anti-war wing in its presidential-selection process.
"[John] Kerry was a flawed candidate, but he was not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem was the party's liberal base," said New Republic editor Peter Beinart in a scathing attack on left-wing activists who oppose President Bush's war on terror.
"The challenge for Democrats today is not to find a different kind of presidential candidate. It is to transform the party at its grass roots so that a different kind of presidential candidate can emerge," Mr. Beinart wrote in the journal's Dec. 13 issue.
In a sobering analysis of the influence the left played, he singled out "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker Michael Moore and the Internet activist group MoveOn.org, whom he compared with the party's Henry Wallace wing in the late 1940s "who saw communists as allies in the fight for domestic and international progress."
A viable Democratic Party majority requires "abandoning the unity-at-all-costs ethos that governed American liberalism in 2004."
"And it requires a sustained battle to wrest the Democratic Party from the heirs of Henry Wallace."
His broadside called on Democrats to stake out an unequivocal military call to arms against terrorism and "Islamist totalitarianism" that he said "threatens the United States and the aspirations of millions across the world."
"And, as long as that threat remains, defeating it must be liberalism's north star."
Some Democratic foreign-policy analysts are similarly critical of the party's turn on national-security issues.
"I agree with Beinart as far as he went. He's a politics guy and he's smart. A lot of Democrats know that we are getting our clocks cleaned on national security," said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution.
"Some Democrats are allergic to the use of force. They still have a powerful influence on the party. That's certainly a problem," Mr. O'Hanlon said.
The centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council also weighed in on Mr. Beinart's side in an article in its Blueprint magazine by founder Al From and President Bruce Reed.
"First and foremost, we need to bridge the trust gap on national security by spelling out our own offense against terrorism and clearly rejecting our anti-war wing, so that Republicans can no longer portray us as the anti-war party in the war on terrorism," they wrote. "We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither represents, nor defines our party."
But Mr. Beinart's critique triggered an outpouring of counterattacks from liberal anti-war Democrats, some of whom said he had not proven his point that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups were a serious danger to the United States.
Kevin Drum, writing the Political Animal blog on washingtonmonthly.com, said that "compared to fascism and communism, Islamic totalitarianism seems like pretty thin beer to many. It's not fundamentally expansionist, and its power to kill people isn't even remotely in the same league."
Rep. Martin Frost of Texas, who lost his House seat last month and is running for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship, rejected Mr. Beinart's argument that Democrats came across as weak on terrorism, saying "The Republican [pre-emptive war] approach is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous."
Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, also belittled Mr. Beinart's call for his party's liberals to be just as tough against terrorism as the Americans for Democratic Action were against communism in the late 1940s, saying that "2004 is not 1947."

let the civil war begin...
btw, with idiots like rosenberg and frost running the show,dismissing the threat al-queda and facism is to america and its future, republicans will win every election from here to eternity...

Click to expand...

No they will not, why? Because of the money, honey.

If you were to research the economic history of America, you'll find that the strongest economies came while the country was under democratic control. People will ultimately get tired of the prices going up, the value of their dollar going down and finding new jobs.

The Euro is kicking our butts, GW had already told you this afternoon that the so called "Jobs you don't want to do", will go to the immigrants; the threat from al-queda? Man, I have neighbors who have dogs that'd threatened my family more than al-queda!

I, as well as middle america, agree on a controlled budget for fighting the war on terrorism. I also want to address the economic terrorism that the EURO is applying on our economy.

Democrats had always owned and will continue to own the ability to run this nation's economy with efficency. Only John Kerry can stop John Kerry from being the next president of the United States.

I now agree on GW's argument that Kerry would be the wrong president, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Sometimes, the best way to tell a person to not piss on an electrictric fence lies within you allowing them to piss on it.

In 2008, Kerry will be the right person, in the right place, at the right time.

Why? Because I believe in the old saying,"Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself". Bush has plenty of rope...

If you were to research the economic history of America, you'll find that the strongest economies came while the country was under democratic control. People will ultimately get tired of the prices going up, the value of their dollar going down and finding new jobs.

The Euro is kicking our butts, GW had already told you this afternoon that the so called "Jobs you don't want to do", will go to the immigrants; the threat from al-queda? Man, I have neighbors who have dogs that'd threatened my family more than al-queda!

I, as well as middle america, agree on a controlled budget for fighting the war on terrorism. I also want to address the economic terrorism that the EURO is applying on our economy.

Democrats had always owned and will continue to own the ability to run this nation's economy with efficency. Only John Kerry can stop John Kerry from being the next president of the United States.

I now agree on GW's argument that Kerry would be the wrong president, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Sometimes, the best way to tell a person to not piss on an electrictric fence lies within you allowing them to piss on it.

In 2008, Kerry will be the right person, in the right place, at the right time.

Why? Because I believe in the old saying,"Give him enough rope, he'll hang himself". Bush has plenty of rope...

Click to expand...

Kerry has already hung himself.... He wont stand a chance against H. Clinton in 08

My gosh, bring in the counselors! Not only were the extreme left wing liberals soundly rejected by the Country,
now the party is rejecting them too? Do ya think they will ever figure out no one wants them?

I hope the Dems purge out the liberals... in fact I would love to see the Democratic Party split into two, a hard-left (the MM/Howard Dean wing) and a center-left (Joe Lieberman, etc.) party. I wouldn't mind losing to a Joe Lieberman, because you know he's not drinking the Kool-Aid that Howard Dean is. It's not Democrats who are dangerous to America, it's hard-core liberals.

Kerry has already hung himself.... He wont stand a chance against H. Clinton in 08

Click to expand...

Wrong, like Bush said of Kerry, "He would be the wrong president, at the wrong time." In his own words, GW endorses Kerry to be president, but not right now.

Like many conservatives point to JFK, I point to Richard Nixon. He failed to win in '60 because he simply ran at the wrong time.

The people really wanted to vote Kerry in, but were too SCARED, not WISE!!!

I don't blame them; states giving out gay marriages; a documentary that labels Bush as a murderer, their children exposed to Janet Jackson's breast, our #1 TV show is about housewives wanting to commit adultery and a controversial movie that reminded us of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

Bush didn't win by the content of his character, he won by our perception of the color of America's skin. Kerry was a a good man, a great soldier, caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Let's put it like this, if Kerry had been elected and I was to receive a call to go back into service, I'd be there at a drop of a hat.

I had no problem serving under Bush SR during the Gulf War. Why?

Because I have no problems serving under a president, with WAR experience, during times of war.

The greatest presidents, that'd ever lived, had faught in wars. They understand that you'll have to see it to believe it; war is truly the weapon of last resort.

Wrong, like Bush said of Kerry, "He would be the wrong president, at the wrong time." In his own words, GW endorses Kerry to be president, but not right now.

Like many conservatives point to JFK, I point to Richard Nixon. He failed to win in '60 because he simply ran at the wrong time.

The people really wanted to vote Kerry in, but were too SCARED, not WISE!!!

I don't blame them; states giving out gay marriages; a documentary that labels Bush as a murderer, their children exposed to Janet Jackson's breast, our #1 TV show is about housewives wanting to commit adultery and a controversial movie that reminded us of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

Bush didn't win by the content of his character, he won by our perception of the color of America's skin. Kerry was a a good man, a great soldier, caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Let's put it like this, if Kerry had been elected and I was to receive a call to go back into service, I'd be there at a drop of a hat.

I had no problem serving under Bush SR during the Gulf War. Why?

Because I have no problems serving under a president, with WAR experience, during times of war.

The greatest presidents, that'd ever lived, had faught in wars. They understand that you'll have to see it to believe it; war is truly the weapon of last resort.

Hylanddr: What do you mean by "bush won by our perception of the color of america's skin"? America is not a single organism with a single coating of skin wrapping us all. There are all skin colors here, and everyone knows it. In light of this information, please explain what the hell you're talking about.

Wrong, like Bush said of Kerry, "He would be the wrong president, at the wrong time." In his own words, GW endorses Kerry to be president, but not right now.

----------
The people really wanted to vote Kerry in, but were too SCARED, not WISE!!!

----------
Bush didn't win by the content of his character, he won by our perception of the color of America's skin. Kerry was a a good man, a great soldier, caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

----------
John Kerry will be a great president someday... But not today.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!